posted on Aug, 27 2003 @ 04:01 PM
"It does seem you arguing both for and against democracy."
Okay. Then explicitly show how I am arguing both for and against democracy in this world today.
Tell me how my evaluation of the Greek roots for "democracy" grew up to mean the entire Western world. Further demonstrate what my faulty definition
really means (it's not enough to discount my argument in a debate). Finally, illustrate, in all your grandeur, how a single democratic county exists
in this world.
I beg you to remember that democracy is a noun, not a state of being.
I beg you to do some research.
I beg you to grapple with at least one point I've let loose.
Okay, let me continue where I picked off...
In expanding the definition of democracy to denote the American Way, human rights, free speech and so forth, that definition becomes a valueless
approximation of the adjective "Good". It takes effort on the torture rack to stretch a noun into an adjective, believe me.
Now hold your cranium and bear with me ... let me insert some basic information theory:
In information theory, there's a concept of meaning. The more a word resolves ambiguities the more meaning it has. Such a word is more valuable in
communication because, well, it means more. So when you make "democracy" a synonym for "Good", it becomes far less meaningful. It's like saying,
Ktprktpr claims to be a good human being vs. Ktprktpr claims to be a Trappist monk. The later definition means more and is more valuable in a
conversation (esp. if I'm not talking). In debates or detailed discussion, the weight of meaning takes on even more value. Okay, so your definition,
as I'm reading it, is almost transparent and meaningless.
Well, where else can I go? Any definition of democracy should respect it's roots and I've given a such a definition. I've extracted points from
that definition. I've illustrated why it's far better to have a meaningful definition than not. From the definition I've showed the U.S. and Europe
aren't democracies. I guess I can go on to prove every other nation on the planet isn't a democracy but that would take a long time. I'll just say
If you look at my points you'll find that
a) pretty much all nations let representatives appoint other "representatives" (violates point 2 and 3),
b) most nations allow the government to have supreme power, by locking people up for life, etc. inside of deporting them (violates point 1),
c) and from b) more than one level of representation exists,
d) the government take a helping of that supreme power that citizens should have (capital punishment, enforced regulations not explictly agreed to by
..... alllllllriiiiiighty then. You got one more post and then its to the conclusion we'll go.